Right v. Breen
890 A.2d 1287 (2006) 277 Conn. 364 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, a plaintiff must prove the element of actual injury to recover damages; an admission of liability for breach of duty, without proof of a resulting injury, does not entitle the plaintiff to an award of nominal damages.
Facts:
- In May 2000, Robert Right had stopped his automobile at a red traffic light.
- A vehicle driven by Kimberly Breen struck Right's vehicle from behind.
- The collision resulted in minor damage to Right's vehicle.
- No physical injuries were reported at the scene of the accident.
- Right had been involved in multiple other automobile accidents both before and after the collision with Breen.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Right sued Kimberly Breen in a Connecticut trial court for negligence.
- Breen filed an answer admitting she caused the collision but denying her negligence caused Right's alleged injuries.
- A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict awarding Right zero economic and zero noneconomic damages.
- Right filed motions to set aside the verdict and for additur.
- The trial court granted Right's motions, setting aside the jury's verdict and awarding him $1 in nominal damages plus costs.
- Breen, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut; Right was the appellee.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating it was bound by the precedent of Keller v. Carone but noting the precedent was 'troubling'.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted Breen's petition for certification to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligence action where the defendant admits liability for the act but denies causing any injury, does the plaintiff's failure to prove actual injury at trial entitle the plaintiff to an award of nominal damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Katz
No. A plaintiff in a negligence action is not entitled to nominal damages when the defendant has admitted liability for the act but has denied causing any actual injury, and the jury awards no damages. The court's prior holding in Keller v. Carone, which suggested that an admission of liability establishes a 'technical legal injury' justifying nominal damages, is expressly overruled. The essential elements of a negligence cause of action are duty, breach of duty, causation, and actual injury. A failure to prove actual injury is fatal to the claim, as negligent conduct that causes no harm is not considered a significant interference with a public interest and gives rise to no right to complain. The concept of a 'technical legal injury' justifying nominal damages is appropriate for intentional torts, where the law seeks to vindicate an invasion of a right regardless of harm, but it is inapposite to negligence claims where actual damage is a required element of the tort itself.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a long-standing point of confusion in Connecticut negligence law by explicitly overruling the 'technical legal injury' concept from Keller v. Carone as it applies to negligence. The ruling reinforces the fundamental distinction between intentional torts, where the invasion of a right is itself the injury, and negligence, where actual harm is a necessary prerequisite for any recovery. By preventing plaintiffs from recovering costs based solely on a defendant's admission of a breach of duty when no harm resulted, the decision discourages litigation over harmless technical faults and aligns Connecticut law with the majority view reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Unlock the full brief for Right v. Breen